Canada’s Cultural Revolution – Compelled Speech Tyranny
Poly Tics . Social Studies
From: Al Neitsch <awneitsch@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 10:13 AM
To: Office of the Premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>; Danielle Smith <danielle@daniellesmith.ca>; Ministry of Justice <ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca>; MA Minister <minister.municipalaffairs@gov.ab.ca>
Cc: Airdrie-Cochrane <airdrie.cochrane@assembly.ab.ca>; Airdrie East <airdrie.east@assembly.ab.ca>; Mayor <mayor@airdrie.ca>; Heather Spearman <heather.spearman@airdrie.ca>; Ron Chapman <ron.chapman@airdrie.ca>; Candice Kolson <candice.kolson@airdrie.ca>; chris.glass@airdrie.ca <chris.glass@airdrie.ca>; kristen.shima@airdrie.ca <kristen.shima@airdrie.ca>; simisola.obasan@airdrie.ca <simisola.obasan@airdrie.ca>
Subject: Alberta Bill Of Rights And Compelled Speech
Dear Premier Smith and Ministers Avery and Williams,
The Alberta Bill of Rights Amendment Act, 2024 expanded freedom of expression beyond spoken and written language, aligning it more with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognizes that freedom of expression includes the right not to express oneself. While the charter protects against compelled expression (such as forced oaths), the Alberta Bill of Rights applies only to provincial government actions and laws.
The reality that Indigenous land acknowledgements constitute a ‘tyranny of compelled speech’ strongly suggests that mandating these statements violates Section 2(b) Charter rights by forcing individuals to recite specific political narratives and use ideologically loaded terms such as ‘unceded’ or ‘stolen’ land. Critics argue that when organizations implement policies or social pressures that make acknowledgements mandatory, it creates a race-based hierarchy and manufactures a false group consensus that undermines personal autonomy and genuine free expression. Critics also contend that these acknowledgements have evolved from optional gestures of respect into accepting Indigenous spirituality or knowing to justify these mandatory ideological rituals. Current challenges and threats to property rights in Canada are proving to be closely related to U.N.D.R.I.P. Agendas which are being given precedent and continue to be divisive and concerning. Nearly 80% of B.C. locked in active Aboriginal land grab battles
It should be noted that there are legal and social consequences for resisting these mandates that have become increasingly severe, with individuals facing accusations of racism, “causing harm,” or violating institutional policies. Notable cases include Geoff Horseman, a biochemistry professor who was barred from discussing the issue by the Waterloo Region District School Board in 2025 and is pursuing a judicial review, and Catherine Kronas, a school councillor who was suspended from her elected position in Hamilton for disagreeing with the practice. That compelled speech is made under threat of social ostracization or disciplinary action is a violation of any bill or charter of rights. A British Columbia mother, Lara Yates, was banned from Chatelech Secondary School in Sechelt, British Columbia after she objected to a land acknowledgement before her daughter’s drama performance in December 2023, urging the school to stop what she termed “race-baiting” procedures.
During China’s Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) compelled speech through the institutionalization of political and ideological loyalty rituals and the suppression of dissenting voices were tragically common. Countless victims suffered and died under Mao Zedong’s directives, where citizens were required to publicly recite quotations from Mao’s works, sing political hymns like ‘The East is Red,’ and participate in struggle sessions where they were forced to confess to ideological errors or denounce others. Are Alberta and Canada going to allow the introduction and normalization of Communist China’s or Nazi Germany’s legacy of authoritarian controls?
The Alberta government introduced Bill 25: An Act to Remove Politics and Ideology from Classrooms and Amend the Education Act, 2026, which mandates that classroom instruction remain neutral, impartial, and free from personal or political bias, whereby schools, classrooms, libraries and other public places are to be required to be politically and ideologically neutral. Why should places of public business and discourse, where municipal or provincial affairs are conducted, not be held to the same standard?
It is still unclear whether statements that members of the public are currently required to sign before registering to speak at a Calgary Public Hearing are still required. The statements, in place since 2021, require registrants to endorse the City’s commitments to “anti-racism, equity, diversity and inclusion” as a condition of participation. When Council first directed Administration to develop the process, Administration’s own legal team explicitly advised against it – warning the statement may amount to government-compelled expression, could have a chilling effect on public participation, and that the potential infringement of participation rights outweighed any benefits.
Being forced to participate in compelled speech rituals or gestures is a violation of our right to freedom of thought and expression that should be protected under The Charter or our Alberta Bill of Rights. It would be refreshing to hear your collective thoughts on whether compelled speech should be allowed to violate The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or our Alberta Bill of Rights.
Sincere Regards,
Al Neitsch
Airdrie, Alberta
Below are some links to more information on how compelled speech of any kind harms society.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tyranny-compelled-speech
https://www.junonews.com/p/op-ed-the-tyranny-of-land-acknowledgements
Ontario schools are training students to design their own land acknowledgements
Here is the response I received on May, 13, 2025. It’s somewhat encouraging that the MOMA would respond but yet again, there seems to be little recognition that ritual compelled speech violates any components of a democratic process or system he might be referencing. It seems that that broad legislative jurisdiction allows for encroaching cultural revolution of a totalitarian sort.
Creep on oh government!
Dear Mr. Neitsch:
Thank you for your follow up email of April 6, 2026, regarding your ongoing concerns with the recent announcement by City of Airdrie Council to approve a new Indigenous land acknowledgement policy.
As I previously stated, the Municipal Government Act (MGA) grants municipal councils’ broad legislative jurisdiction to pass bylaws that serve the municipal purposes outlined in Section 3 of the Act. In the opinion of council, these purposes include providing things that are necessary or desirable for all or a part of the municipality.
In addition to this, Section 7(b) establishes the authority for municipalities to pass bylaws for municipal purposes respecting people, activities, and things in, on, or near a public place or place that is open to the public.
Part 2, Section 9 of the MGA also mandates that the power to pass bylaws be interpreted broadly to allow councils to govern municipalities in whatever way the councils consider appropriate, within the jurisdiction given to them.
Establishing a land acknowledgement policy is within the City of Airdrie’s jurisdiction under sections 3 and 7 of the MGA. Furthermore, the MGA does not establish public engagement requirements for establishing such a policy.
I recognize residents may not always support the decisions of their locally elected council; however, our democratic system is also based upon the principle that elected governments are accountable to the citizens who elect them, and I encourage you to continue sharing your perspectives on the matter directly with your city councillors.
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Dan Williams, ECA
Minister of Municipal Affairs
Leave a Reply